There is some persistent non-scientific arguments made by strong defenders of particular narratives about global warming.
One is the claim that those who disagree with a point are trying to "cast doubt on science".

Okay ... here I am with a proper response. Hold on for a bumpy ride, L2.
... You clarified that you are referring to this, so I will put it in its proper place:

It is indeed a "pretty good report" if - but only if - you're looking for a report which casts as much doubt as possible on climate science without actually lying.

... You have besn seriously misled, as I hope I have shown.

Kim Ohara's charge makes about as much sense, I suggest, as claiming that a difference of opinion about how to translate a sutta is an attempt to case doubt on the entire dharma. Or that "casting doubt" on a particular claim or finding is the same as casting doubt on the entire field. Kim has no problem "casting doubt" on my posts about climate science. So isn't Kim "casting doubt on climate science"?

There are a couple of aspects of distorted thinking in Kim's statement. This includes the embedded assumption that "I understand climate science, what I say is climate science is true science and what you think is climate science isn't science". Scientists disagree all the time -- it's called institutionalize disconfirmation. The process of disagreeing -- "casting doubt" -- is a vital element in the scientific process.

I think there is a terrible fear that those who are allegedly "casting doubt" might have a point. The usual reason why ad-hominem arguments are considered fallacies or non-critical thinking is that flawed persons are capable of coming up with good ideas. Also that attacking the person bypasses addressing the issue at hand.

An odd aspect of Kim's statement is how places "climate science" on a sacred pedestal. To even question this god is sacrilege. People who commit such sacrilege must be evil and incapable of speaking truth. They must be lying, close to lying or mislead.

Finally, Kim seems to be working on the assumption that Kim knows the inner motivations of those who disagree with her. Some debate teachers would say that when the other side resorts to such arguments it's a sign of desperation and that you have won.

---------------------------------------------
As to the "hockey stick" reported in the IPCC AR3 report. Several scientific panels made criticisms or "cast doubt" on various aspects of that finding. Also of some of the conduct of the scientists involved. Some elements of criticism of it are not very controversial.
It's telling that to this day some persons seem to run away from admitting the errors or serious questions that were raised about that work. Scientific integrity requires it. Science, and Buddhist ethics align on this. If you know something is true then say so. If you are unsure or don't know then say that.

Friday marks the official start of the Atlantic hurricane season, which will be watched with interest after last year’s season broke a number of records and e.g. devastated Puerto Rico’s power grid, causing serious problems that persist today. One of us (Mike) is part of a team that has issued a seasonal forecast (see Kozar et al 2012) calling for a roughly average season in terms of overall activity (10 +/- 3 named storms), with tropical Atlantic warmth constituting a favorable factor, but predicted El Nino conditions an unfavorable factor. Meanwhile, the first named storm, Alberto, has gone ahead without waiting for the official start of the season.

In the long term, whether we will see fewer or more tropical cyclones in the Atlantic or in other basins as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change is still much-debated. There is a mounting consensus, however, that we will see more intense hurricanes. So let us revisit the question of whether global warming is leading to more intense tropical storms. Let’s take a step back and look at this issue globally, not just for the Atlantic. ...

... in most major tropical cyclone regions, the storms with the highest wind speeds on record have been observed in recent years (see Fig. 1 based on reanalysis by Velden et al. 2017). The strongest globally was Patricia (2015), which topped the previous record holder Haiyan (2013).

Other recent records are worth mentioning. Sandy (2012) was the largest hurricane ever observed in the Atlantic. Harvey (2017) dumped more rain than any hurricane in the United States. Ophelia (2017) formed further northeast than any other Category 3 Atlantic hurricane – fortunately it turned north before striking Portugal, against initial predictions, and then weakened over cool waters before it hit Ireland. September 2017 broke the record for cumulative hurricane energy in the Atlantic. Irma (2017) sustained wind speeds of 300 km/h longer than any storm on record (for 37 hours – the previous record was 24 hours by Haiyan in 2013). Cyclone Pam in March 2015 was already beaten again by Winston in February 2016 according to the Southwest Pacific Enhanced Archive for Tropical Cyclones (though not in Velden’s data analysis). Donna in 2017 was the strongest May cyclone ever observed in the Southern Hemisphere. All coincidence? ...

Storms of 200 km/h and more have doubled in number, and those of 250 km/h and more have tripled. ...

However, global warming does not only increase the wind speed or frequency of strong storms (which is actually two ways of looking at the same phenomenon, as frequency depends on wind speed). The average location where the storms are reaching their peak intensity is also slowly migrating poleward (Kossin et al. 2014) and the area where storms occur expands (Benestad 2009, Lucas et al. 2014), which changes patterns of storm risk and increases risk in regions that are historically less threatened by these storms (Kossin et al. 2016).

If we did a poll I wonder how western Buddhists would answer this question:True or false. There is a strong consensus among scientists that as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change we will see more tropical cyclones (hurricanes).

My hypothesis is that a majority would answer true.
Whereas an answer of false indicates more scientific literacy.

Does global warming make tropical cyclones stronger?
Filed under: Climate Science Hurricanes Oceans — stefan @ 30 May 2018
By Stefan Rahmstorf, Kerry Emanuel, Mike Mann and Jim Kossin
... In the long term, whether we will see fewer or more tropical cyclones in the Atlantic or in other basins as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change is still much-debated.

... is still much-debated. Something that those of us who actually read the scientific literature already knew.
But in some circles to admit that is considered unethical because the public cannot be trusted to have that information.

If memory serves correctly in all details: Some offer the prediction that things will get worse, some better, and perhaps the majority say they some will become more powerful by some measures, less by other measures and total numbers may decrease.

--------------------------------

There is general agreement that storm damage depends a lot on 1) how much building, and more expensive building, occurs on vulnerable coasts 2) the building standards followed. A lot of buildings are not constructed using hurricane/storm resistant designs.

In the US there is a decent, bi-partisan agreement that subsidized hurricane insurance doesn't help.

In my sometimes interesting and diverse life I've surveyed storm damage and flooding after a major hurricane and I soon saw with my own eyes the difference location makes too. The older, generally better off parts of town, were built on the highest ground. The poorest areas often in low lands. In many cases the difference of a few feet made all the difference.
In addition, small differences in how the roof was laid down meant the difference between losing up to 1/2 the shingles or tiles or almost no damage at all. One problem is that some roofers don't read and attend to following the manufacturer's installation instructions. Small variances in installation can have big consequences.

Outside of town many houses were build using a traditional but relatively inexpensive design where the first floor was suspended above the ground by concrete pylons. The "pylons" often being pre-cast concrete blocks and occasionally carefully fitted stone.

If we did a poll I wonder how western Buddhists would answer this question:
True or false. There is a strong consensus among scientists that as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change we will see more tropical cyclones (hurricanes).

My hypothesis is that a majority would answer true.
Whereas an answer of false indicates more scientific literacy.

Hypothesis? More like a guess, I guess but I actually agree with you.
But it's not relevant or important because a representative sample of "western Buddhists" has no particular expertise.
The scientific consensus on numbers of cyclones is weak. The question posed (and answered by RealClimate) was about strength, not number - read its headline:

Does global warming make tropical cyclones stronger?
Filed under: Climate Science Hurricanes Oceans — stefan @ 30 May 2018
By Stefan Rahmstorf, Kerry Emanuel, Mike Mann and Jim Kossin
... In the long term, whether we will see fewer or more tropical cyclones in the Atlantic or in other basins as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change is still much-debated.

... is still much-debated. Something that those of us who actually read the scientific literature already knew.
But in some circles to admit that is considered unethical because the public cannot be trusted to have that information.

If memory serves correctly in all details: Some offer the prediction that things will get worse, some better, and perhaps the majority say they some will become more powerful by some measures, less by other measures and total numbers may decrease.

Did you actually read the linked article? If you had, you would not need to rely on longterm memory, and you would have a bit more confidence in what is known and what remains unknown.

L2 wrote:
There is general agreement that storm damage depends a lot on 1) how much building, and more expensive building, occurs on vulnerable coasts 2) the building standards followed. A lot of buildings are not constructed using hurricane/storm resistant designs.

In the US there is a decent, bi-partisan agreement that subsidized hurricane insurance doesn't help.

In my sometimes interesting and diverse life I've surveyed storm damage and flooding after a major hurricane and I soon saw with my own eyes the difference location makes too. The older, generally better off parts of town, were built on the highest ground. The poorest areas often in low lands. In many cases the difference of a few feet made all the difference.
In addition, small differences in how the roof was laid down meant the difference between losing up to 1/2 the shingles or tiles or almost no damage at all. One problem is that some roofers don't read and attend to following the manufacturer's installation instructions. Small variances in installation can have big consequences.

Outside of town many houses were build using a traditional but relatively inexpensive design where the first floor was suspended above the ground by concrete pylons. The "pylons" often being pre-cast concrete blocks and occasionally carefully fitted stone.

That's all true, although your experience of building styles seems a bit limited.
Here we call houses on tall stumps "high-set" or just "high" houses, but the stumps ("pylons" is your word) were invariably wood or (a bit later) concrete until about thirty years ago and are now usually steel. The basic design works well because it lets flash floods flow under the house (or hotel or whatever) doing almost no damage, and in dry times the space under the building is used for storage, livestock (in developing countries), etc. It's often semi-enclosed for security as in this pic -

BUT - to get back to the current topic - the height of the stumps reflects historical local knowledge of flood levels. If you build your house so that its floor is above known flood heights and a bigger flood comes along, as it will after a bigger weather event, you still lose a lot of stuff.

Seasonal Hurricane Predictions - 2018 Season
The Atlantic Hurricane season of 2018 began June 1http://www.bsc.es/seasonalhurricanepredictions#
Scroll down to see 20 different hurricane predictions from universities, government agencies and private entities.

I have warned you, however, that we have been fortunate in recent years and that the catastrophe-light period
the industry was experiencing was not a new norm. Last September drove home that point, as three significant
hurricanes hit Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico.

... We currently estimate Berkshire’s losses from the three hurricanes to be $3 billion (or about $2 billion after
tax). If both that estimate and my industry estimate of $100 billion are close to accurate, our share of the industry loss
was about 3%. I believe that percentage is also what we may reasonably expect to be our share of losses in future
American mega-cats.

Mega-cat = large catastrophe

We believe that the annual probability of a U.S. mega-catastrophe causing $400 billion or more of insured
losses is about 2%. No one, of course, knows the correct probability. We do know, however, that the risk increases
over time because of growth in both the number and value of structures located in catastrophe-vulnerable areas.

--www.berkshirehathaway.com/2017ar/2017ar.pdf
There is a general consensus that the major factor driving increased storm losses is because of the growth in both the number and value of structures located in catastrophe-vulnerable areas. This is a world wide phenomena. Even in poorer countries population growth is often fastest on coast lines.

But in the politically sensitive world of climate observation and prediction that story is sometimes considered controversial or not to be spoken of.

Seasonal Hurricane Predictions - 2018 Season
The Atlantic Hurricane season of 2018 began June 1http://www.bsc.es/seasonalhurricanepredictions#
Scroll down to see 20 different hurricane predictions from universities, government agencies and private entities.

Now we wait a year.

You can wait as long as you want. I'm not going to even bother looking at them, because a prediction for a single year is largely guesswork - as you should know. We can (and should) look at trends but the signal-to-noise ratio is very low so we need lots of years' data to establish the trend and any single year can deviate wildly from the trend - as you should know.
The more of the history we know, the better our guesses are likely to be, but all we can ever expect.

There are kinds of Anthropogenic (man-made) climate change such as the UHI (Urban Heat Island) that have little or nothing to do with green house gases, CO2 etc.

As Los Angeles Heats Up, Fog Fades (2015)

Southern California is home to tens of millions of people, and Los Angeles, with a population of almost 4 million, is the second largest city in the U.S. A new study published in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), a journal of the American Geophysical Union, has found that urbanization around coastal Southern California is affecting the region’s clouds and fog. This trend has important implications for ecosystems and cities.

As cities grow, adding roads, buildings, industry and people, temperatures rise relative to the outlying suburbs and rural areas, and create the “heat island effect.” Concrete and asphalt absorb heat during the day and retain it at night. As the cities of coastal southern California get warmer (At the most urbanized sites, nighttime temperatures have risen at a rate of nearly 1˚F hotter every decade.), they are driving fog away and causing the low stratus clouds, crucial for providing shade and moderating temperatures in summer, to rise.
-- http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2015/03/11 ... alifornia/

A more recent study adds wildfires to the impacts.Increasing Heat Is Driving Off Clouds That Dampen California Wildfires
Urbanization and Climate Change Combine to Heighten Danger

Sunny California may be getting too sunny. Increasing summer temperatures brought on by a combination of intensifying urbanization and warming climate are driving off once common low-lying morning clouds in many southern coastal areas of the state, leading to increased risk of wildfires, says a new study.

“Cloud cover is plummeting in southern coastal California,” said Park Williams, a bioclimatologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and lead author of the research. “And as clouds decrease, that increases the chance of bigger and more intense fires.” Williams said the decrease is driven mainly by urban sprawl, which increases near-surface temperatures, but that overall warming climate is contributing, too.
-- http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/05/30 ... wildfires/

Plain Language Summary
In much of coastal southern California, the frequency of summer clouds has declined rapidly in recent decades due warming from urbanization and greenhouse gases. These reductions have significantly reduced cloud shading and increased evaporative demand, particularly in greater Los Angeles and northern San Diego, such that a relatively cloudy summer today is similar to a relatively clear summer in the 1970s. Clouds appear to be important regulators of summer wildfire activity in this region, as the shade they provide slows loss of moisture from vegetation. On the vegetated mountainsides that ring coastal southern California's large cities, increases in summer sunlight and evaporative demand have likely enhanced summer wildfire potential over the past several decades. This effect is expected to continue due to continued urban expansion and positive feedbacks, where warming due to cloud loss promotes further warming and cloud loss.